Attic access?

[peach]

The problem, TJ, is that some posters are property owners...

 

[mark handler]

Jake

I resemble that remark.

I get a kick out of reading some code "officials" remarks, that don't know what the code says.

Not what they want it to say...

We need to keep both sides in line.....

Remember forum is not just for "code officials", that's one of the things that killed the ICC BB

 

[permitguy]

It's not an attic

As described above, it is the attic for the first floor space whose footprint extends beyond the second floor space. If we disregard that, we could still say it's beyond the scope of what the authors were thinking of when they wrote the definition for a typical post WWII home. In either case, the intent seems the same to me.

the FD guys are going to put a hook in the ceiling and tear the whole darn thing down rather than use the access.

All bets are off is there is a fire burning. If they are doing a smoke/odor investigation, though, they'll use the access. Tearing the ceiling down before you know there is a problem will cause phone calls to the chief. Kind of like a Knox box - they'll take the time to get keys if investigating an alarm signal, but if there's a fire, they'll use other means.

All of those conditions apply to a space less than 30" high to exactly the same degree.

You left a condition off which changes things. If you can't realistically get far enough in to take a look around, then there is no point in providing an access.

In other words, your zealous enforcement almost certainly increases the hazard.

I disagree with your position that avoiding installation of access means no storage can be placed in there. If someone wants to store something, they'll put their own access in. Better to make sure it's done correctly from the get-go. I've seen some incidental storage in attics, but not generally to the point that I feel the threat of fire outweighs the benefit of an access. Based on your logic, we should simply prohibit attic access in all cases. Maybe we should prohibit doors into homes, too. After all, I've seen hoarders stack their entire living space to the ceiling with trash which wasn't accounted for in the design of the home.

 

[brudgers]

You left a condition off which changes things. If you can't realistically get far enough in to take a look around, then there is no point in providing an access.

I left off a condition, and you missed the point. No access = much less probability of storage (including combustibles) in a place which was not designed to accommodate it.

I disagree with your position that avoiding installation of access means no storage can be placed in there. If someone wants to store something, they'll put their own access in. Better to make sure it's done correctly from the get-go. I've seen some incidental storage in attics, but not generally to the point that I feel the threat of fire outweighs the benefit of an access. Based on your logic, we should simply prohibit attic access in all cases. Maybe we should prohibit doors into homes, too. After all, I've seen hoarders stack their entire living space to the ceiling with trash which wasn't accounted for in the design of the home.

My logic is that in marginal cases, the risks outweigh the concerns...and if a little lumber can be used to meet the letter of the code to prevent some Building Official/Zoning Official from forcing the designer to increase the risk, then that's a good thing.

BTW, the desk at which I am sitting as I type this abuts a condition exactly like that pictured (48" clear)- and if there was an access, the space would be full of files.

 

[TJacobs]

I stand by my comment and will resist all attempts to make it personal, which it was not. If you think that comment was aimed at anyone specific, I'm not sure I could say anything that would change your mind.

 

[brudgers]

I get a kick out of reading some of the outrageous attempts to avoid reality on this board. Makes me glad not all the posters are code officials.

After reading the twisted logic behind so many attempts to bully the public on this board, I am saddened that so many posters are code officials.

 

[fatboy]

OK.........I don't know why some threads have to end up "flaming" out. Of course we all don't agree on everything, no need to start zinging folks because their opinion is different than yours. Make a ruling based on your interp of the code. If you don't like what the code says, get involved, submit a code change proposal. Otherwise, enforce the code as it is written, or locally amended.

 

[brudgers]

Otherwise, enforce the code as it is written, or locally amended.

or as common sense would dictate.

 

[Mac]

The laws about what codes we (in NY) have to enforce don't mention common sense. Common sense is presumed to have been applied in the capitol, way above my pay grade.

Just saying we don't get to pick & choose.

 

[north star]

$ $ $ $

Just saying we don't get to pick & choose.

Actually, IMO, we DO get to pick & choose!

From Section R104.1, 2006 IRC: General.

"The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the

provisions of this code........The building official shall have the authority

to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and

procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions......Such

interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the

intent and purpose of this code.........Such policies and procedures shall not

have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this

code."

This is one thing in the codes that WAS done right!....It gives each AHJ

the ability to interpret the codes things in a way that is applicable

specifically to that AHJ.......This is "Home Rule!"

$ $ $ $

 

[mark handler]

.......The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions.........Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code.........

That assumes the building official knows the intent and purpose of this code......... based on some posts,I question that

 

[north star]

* * * *

That assumes the building official knows the intent and purpose ofthis code......... based on some posts, I question that.

Regardless, the BO still has the authority to render their own interpretations.......Mark,I agree with you that some BO's are less than competent and not qualified to be a BO,

however, some AHJ's want it this way.

* * * *

 

[mark handler]

One of the intents of the Icodes is to have a “uniform”, consistant code..... not to have each BO make up his/her own code.

 

[SCBO1]

I was wondering if the DP or plan reviewer would have picked up on the attic or consealed space access or not at plan review?

pc1

 

[mark handler]

I was wondering if the DP or plan reviewer would have picked up on the attic or consealed space acces or not at plan review?pc1

Education, Experiance, incompetence

There might have been a missed note on the plans, the contractor may have changed the pitch on the roof, creating the headroom, roof rafter depth may have changed, any number of things...

 

[brudgers]

I was wondering if the DP or plan reviewer would have picked up on the attic or consealed space access or not at plan review?pc1

DP on an SFR?

Rarely - and even then the contractor changing the roof pitch at the request of the owner, or framer, or in error could create the situation.

 

[permitguy]

Ignoring application of the code because you think it makes you a bully is not the same as rendering an interpretation. If one doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to require installation of a simple attic access, I shudder to think how one handles corrective action of something that is difficult or costly.

Luckily, those who are ever-yielding to contractors and designers in their enforcement are the extreme minority in this business.

Flame away. I'm done with this one.

 

[fatboy]

I'll take the heat with you, I agree.

 

[globe trekker]

C`mon "permitguy", don't throw in the towel so soon. Hang in there for some more

spellbounding, action packed dialogue! It's what we do on here!

Besides, I'm hoping that Jeff will chime in and give us some more info on what

was the outcome on this. Ya know, kinda like Paul Harvey used to do in, ..."the

rest of the story!"

.

 

[brudgers]

Ignoring application of the code because you think it makes you a bully is not the same as rendering an interpretation. If one doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to require installation of a simple attic access, I shudder to think how one handles corrective action of something that is difficult or costly.Luckily, those who are ever-yielding to contractors and designers in their enforcement are the extreme minority in this business.

Flame away. I'm done with this one.

It's not enforcement of the letter of the code which is bullying.

It is trifling enforcement in marginal cases - i.e. if a person can make the access go away by installing a 2x strong back on the top of the ceiling joist and a 2x purlin on the underside of the rafters you're just making citizens jump through your hoop (see comments to George).

 

[mtlogcabin]

If one doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to require installation of a simple attic access, I shudder to think how one handles corrective action of something that is difficult or costly.

Is it the attic does not have access or just this small portion of it? It is not a matter of intestinal fortitude for some it is a matter of application of the code. The attic has to have a minimum access size. There is no code requirement that all portions of the attic have to be accessible by a minimum size opening unless there is mechanical equipment located there. I would look at this to determine if some one could access this space through the framing before requiring an access door to this small area. More pictures would be helpfull

 

[High Desert]

I have learned to pick my fights. This isn't one of them. You aren't gaining any added safety feature that makes a difference, IMHO.

 

[RJJ]

I agree with Permitguy and Fatboy, but at the same time agree with High Desert. This may not be a fight to pick. How it will be insulated to create the envelope is a greater concern. On the practical side it provides great space for storage at a cheap price, so I would press for the access. Most often this does not end in some form of fight unless the contractor is a knuckle head.

 

[Moscow]

Well here not only would you have to install the access you would have to have 6 side contact (because we all know that the manufacture of the batt insulation tells us that you need 6 sided contact for the insulation to work they way it was intened to) on the wall insulation. so you would have dry wall on the house side of the wall and some kind of air barrier on the attic/crawl side.